User talk:Daranios

Envoyer

Do you have this magazine? I think this is saying it is a review for the game accessory The Sea Devils (Dungeons & Dragons), is that about right?: [1] BOZ (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello BOZ! I am afraid this one is not among the meager four Envoyer issues I own. Die Teufel der See is indeed the German translation of The Sea Devils. The only thing about the rpggeek entry is that it says review for "Trilogie für Die Teufel der See " = triology for The Sea Devils. The three adventures which came out for that accessory were indeed translated into German as Flut des Verderbens (Evil Tides), Nacht der Haie (Night of the Shark) and Fluch aus der Tiefe (Sea of Blood) respectively. So presumably the review is about those three adventures. Daranios (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You know, I kind of suspected it was something like that since it did say Trilogie, but I had forgotten how that adventure line came to be. I started working on User:BOZ/Envoyer yesterday. :) I'm not adding any non-English reviews myself, but I created this page (and several others) for people who are better at translating than me. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice! I have Envoyers 41, 76, 81, 84 available. In case you need any help with those, just let me know. Daranios (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! :) I haven't looked yet to see what is in those issues, but when I do then I will let you know. :) It looks like #41 would be from the year 2000 so there is likely some D&D 3E coverage around that time or soon after. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I took a peek at #41 on RPGgeek but that is one of the pages where the contents are not listed for that issue[2] - some do, and some don't. #76 is the same[3] as is #81[4] and #84[5] unfortunately, so I don't have a clue as to what was reviewed in those. BOZ (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I can add what's in there to your list if you like. Daranios (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, you can add it here and I will copy it over. :) BOZ (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Envoyer #41: Der Norden (The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier), Last Rites (Call of Cthulhu), Netz der Mörder, Von Notmark nach Elenvina - Das Aventurisch Kartenwerk 2: Mittelaventurien, Zwischen Steineiche und Salzarele - Das Herzogtum Engasal, Man & Machine: Cyberware, Encyclopaedia Vampirica, Krieg der Engel

Envoyer #76: Arcane Codex, D&D Monster Set (3. Edition) (Monster Manual 3rd edition), Mumien - Die Widergeburt (Mummy: The Resurrection), Herr Der Ringe - Die zwei Türme (Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game: The Two Towers), Reign of Fire (video game); short reviews: The First (comics) 1+2, Atalante (comic), Die Geißel der Götter 1+2, Chobits 1, XCT 1+2, Island 2, Crossgen Digest 6, Raubtiere III 10+11, Der Skorpion 2 - Das Geheimnis des Papstes, Das Kristallschwert 3-5, Das dritte Testament - Lukas oder Der Atem des Stiers, Die großen Museen Europas (Modern Games), Leonardo da Vinci - Die Malerei (Modern Games), Private Eye (role-playing game)

Envoyer #81: Celtos, Ravenloft: Gesichter des Schreckens, Earthdawn: Der Blutwald (The Blood Wood), Die Hohen (Exalted), Enter the Matrix; System comparison: MERS (MERP), Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game

Envoyer #84: Dragons of the Sixth World, Das Schurken-Handbuch (The Quintessential Rogue), Ork!, Vampires aus der Alten Welt: Europa (Dark Ages: Europe), HeroQuest/Hero Wars; Short reviews of mobile games: Nedime - die Tochter des Kalifen, Geheimnis der Zyklopen, Sumpf des Verderbens, Unter Piraten, Popcorn, Plüsch & Petticoats

Hey, BOZ, I'm done with the content of those issues. If you have any questions, let me know. Daranios (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks! :) I'd say of those, The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier needs something from the review added the most if you are up for that! :) I see you added that to the "reviews" section of the page a while ago. :) BOZ (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also Ork! The Roleplaying Game, in case anyone tries to AFD it again. :) BOZ (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ethan Skemp

Do you see anything that could help with Ethan Skemp which is at PROD? BOZ (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello BOZ! Sorry, my search for Ethan Skemp came up empty. My suggestion would be to redirect him to Werewolf: The Forsaken, which seem according to the article to be his most major contribution. (I have added him there as designer, he was missing for some reason.) And merge the one secondary sourced sentence to Lichdom: Battlemage. What do you think? Daranios (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

ENnie Awards

ENnie Awards was just PRODded and unPRODded - I will see what else I can find for that one. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Monster lists

Hi there! :) If you've been keeping up at all with my massive list of deleted/redirected D&D articles, I am letting you know that I am finally mostly done constructing it. There are a few more checks that I want to do with it, so either next week or the week after I will finally be moving it into project space so all users can properly benefit from it. :)

Meanwhile, I am letting you know that while I understand that the majority of those former articles are not coming back any time soon, I do have plans for a few of them. Based on your incredible work with the 2nd edition monster list, I am planning to work on the 1st edition monster list to get it restored. Once I am done with the finishing touches on my deletions list, I will move the 1st edition monster list to draft space, and copy your sources as appropriate to each of the monsters in the list. I will also be checking each of the monsters in my list to see if they have independent sources in the redirected article, and if so copy those onto the monster list, and vice versa copy sources from the monster list to the redirected article - I saw you doing this here and there on the redirected articles, but I want to cover every base I can.  :) (For a perfect example of what we can do, see how Githyanki was deleted at AFD, I requested it to be restored, added a source and redirected it again, and then you added another source and redirected it again.)

As I do this, I am also going to see what deleted articles have multiple sources on the 2nd edition list, and try to get those articles into draft space so they can be worked on. Once the 1st edition list is complete and ready to be moved into article space, I'm going to see what we can do about getting the OD&D, BD&D, 3E, 3.5, 4E, and 5E lists back! :) We may even have the opportunity to get some of the monster articles back into article space as well, we will see. One thing at a time! BOZ (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey BOZ, thanks for keeping me updated and thanks for the enormous compilation work on the deleted articles! All the best with the 1st edition monster list. and all the other plans. If you happen upon any sources I have not included in my 2nd edition one, please let me know. In the long term I wonder if someone will hold duplication of (potentially non-edition-specific) in those lists against us, but we will see, and having just the 2nd edition one has always been a bit weird. :-) Daranios (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: Oh, I forgot: Do you have any plans with regard to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons? My idea was to wait a few more days and then restore the removed content. And if I can motivate myself trim it. But there was a 1st edition monster list, that would take in a portion of the removed content... Daranios (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely want to restore some of that removed content, as it appears we had consensus and the person who removed it did not challenge the idea much. I will take a look maybe later today. BOZ (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot less time to work on monsters this week than I expected I would, but still I will be able to make enough progress today on the current phase of my project that I should be able to finish it with no problem next week and move on to working on monsters. :) BOZ (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: Great, whenever fit's you schedule. :-) Daranios (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing! Have you looked here to make sure that the 2E list is using all the independent sources that were used in the 1E list? BOZ (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: Ah, thanks, actually I didn't and will do now. I don't think there's a lot of new stuff, but I'd want to check it anyway. I had added checking monster redirects in general to the to-do list "sources", but that'll more or less be the last point, meaning it will be incredibly far in the future. :-) Daranios (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to start working on this today. :) As a first step before I get into comparing sources from the lists and the redirected articles, I moved Lycanthrope and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hag_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)&oldid=1078855315 Hag back from draft into article space, and I plan to update some infoboxes on redirected articles today. :) BOZ (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• @BOZ: Very nice, I see you have been busy already :-)! Ahm, did you still plan on restoring/working on Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, too? I am not too keen on taking that up... Daranios (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but not just yet. Also see the Black Gate source I added to rust monster[6] - may or may not be useful in general. BOZ (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Good find, though here I have suggestions for improvement: I am not sure what the Black Gate is, but might be a blog. For the rust monster and the bulette "based on a plastic toy from Hong Kong" is attested in The Ashgate Encyclopedia as an uncontentious source. But the Black Gate also led me to the original post by Tony DiTerlizzi, where the owlbear, umber hulk and carrion crawler are also attested, complete with pictures, and which in turn leads back to posts by Tim Kask. Maybe these are useful? Daranios (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I would think so, and I'm glad you found them. :) Black Gate is a magazine, formerly in print but now online. BOZ (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

O cool, if that's a magazine than that's great! Daranios (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, it has taken a lot longer than I expected to add/fix infoboxes to all the monster articles! :o But on the bright side, at the rate I've been moving, I should be able to finish that when I come back to it on Monday, which gives me some part of that day and all of Tuesday to finally do some work on the actual lists and getting more sources on the monster articles like you did with Githzerai today. :) BOZ (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I finally finished the infoboxes! I had no idea there were that many that needed updates, corrections, or to be added... but at least all of the redirected articles are in good shape to go if we ever find the sources for them. :) I have one hour now to start mining the articles for sources to add to the monster list, so I will get started on that now! BOZ (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: Great, thanks a lot for all the additions! Daranios (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm just getting warmed up. :) BOZ (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've been adding a lot today, and I still have a few hours to work on it, so when you get a chance go ahead and take a long look - toss or condense anything I've added that you think doesn't belong there. :) I will most likely be able to finish up this part tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

And there you have it, I'm done copying sources from the (redirected) articles to the list, so now with the rest of my time for today I'm going to reverse that and copy sources from the list to the articles wherever the sources are not already there. :) With any luck, if you have sources on the list for articles that have been deleted, I can get those restored as redirects to the list so that when/if we get enough sources we can bring them back one day! BOZ (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I made some good progress today! :) I still have a long way to go, but I will save that work for next week and possibly the week after that. I am feeling much better overall about the sourcing situation on the redirected monsters, and the few that we have left as articles. One thing I am pleasantly surprised about is the available sourcing for the ones based directly on legendary creatures - I saw all the time people in AFDs previously saying how those would never be notable compared to the original D&D creations, well look now and here we go, there is potential. :) I decided to not yet pursue any undeletions so that I could focus on sourcing the articles better, but I am keeping my options open on that. BOZ (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: Indeed, and great work overall! Thanks a lot! Daranios (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up with this! I'll be back at adding the sources to the redirected articles in a few hours. :) BOZ (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe I will be able to finish this part up today. :) BOZ (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

And so I have finished that part! One more thing I want to do next is to go over that list one more time and request undeletion for items which have sources - not sure how many I will get success with, but here's to trying. ;) I doubt that will take me all day, so after that the next step is the big one - getting the 1E list into draft space so we can work on it. :) BOZ (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked for two to be undeleted and moved to drafts, and I got two! Centaur is at Draft:Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons) and Orc is at Draft:Orc (Dungeons & Dragons). I added the sources from the list to both of them that were not already on there, but if there is anything else you want to do with them, we have some time. :) BOZ (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

So there are those two drafts, and I was able to send the 1E creature list to draft as well - I'm going to spend some time working on that one tomorrow, so please allow me the time to work on it and then when I am done go ahead and get to work on it however you like. :) BOZ (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I am all done copying information and citations to the 1E monster list! Feel free to work your magic there, and some time next week I will ask the closing admin if it is ready to move back to article space. :) In the meanwhile, I will see if I can get the OD&D and BD&D lists restored to draft space so that I can start working on those as well! :) BOZ (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Great work! I hope this get's approved. Currently I wouldn't want to spend more time at the other monster lists, but rather get back to expanding the 2nd edition list more as soon as I can find the time (also taken up by other corners of interest :-). Daranios (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough! For now, I will work on the other lists in draft space and keep you updated on my progress, but I am find with keeping just the 2E list for now. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Just keeping you informed as I go! So the 1st edition list had a total of 4 independent sources out of a total of 75 sources when the AFD was closed as redirect, which is probably why it wasn't deleted instead - it had a total of 186 sources when I was done last week, which means I probably copied more than 100 independent sources from the 2nd edition list! I just worked on the OD&D list this morning at Draft:List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), which had a grand total of 2 citations at the time of its deletion[7] and now has 45 sources, almost all of them independent. :) I will start working on the Basic D&D list shortly, which I may or may not finish today. BOZ (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed a lot of progress :-)! Still, I hope the various sources on individual monsters will be enough to overcome the other criticisms. Did you want me to look into anything specific with the lists other than my pet 2nd edition one? Daranios (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you can keep doing as you have been, for now. Once I have gone through all of these lists (I'm about halfway done, I think) then I will ask the closing admin on the 1st edition list if my progress is enough to overturn the AFD outcome. If that can be resolved easily enough, then I will look at bringing the others out of drafts. I have finished the Basic D&D monsters list at Draft:List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99), which was made a lot easier because I could just copy most of what I did from the original D&D monsters list, and the results were similar but a little better. :) I will spend the next couple of hours starting the 3.0 list and then move on to the 3.5, 4th, and 5th the rest of this week and starting next week. I think if there is one thing we need to really make these properly "viable" is a source that goes "monsters in this edition were..." and that should weaken that particular criticism, if we can find one. BOZ (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I tackled 3rd edition today! For the 3.0 list, its only references were 4 primary sources, and now Draft:List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters has 113. :) For the 3.5 list, it had no references at all, but now Draft:List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters has 95. :) Let's see how far I can get on the 4E and 5E lists by the end of tomorrow, but most likely I think I will be finishing up on these lists next week! BOZ (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I finished Draft:List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters earlier today, which started with 1 primary source and now has 98. :) I'm going to see how far I get with the 5E list - note that with the current version of Draft:List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters before I get going[8] has 22 sources, several of which actually are independent - I don't know what can be extracted from those sources, but you never know. :) Here we go, let's see if I can finish before the end of day. :) BOZ (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

All done with 5E! I got up to 126 sources! :o So for next week, well, I will not be working on monster lists. LOL BOZ (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that was really an amazing amount of work in a short time! Daranios (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Super Genius Games

Do you see anything more for Super Genius Games? BOZ (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: I am afraid I did not see anything. Would it make sense to merge that somewhere? To List of role-playing game publishers, or, as that is structured differently, maybe rather to R. Hyrum Savage? Daranios (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I will probably wind up redirecting it if nothing else turns up. BOZ (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Scrat

Hey Daranois, I think youre good at finding sources. Do you think you can hunt so we can add at them at the article soon. Was just wondering if this can notable to have its own page and hoping it to survive when someone attempted to delete. Thanks. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:CCFA:EE4F:6C7:789B (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, we can have a look. I believe you can find a lot yourself, too: The notability notice at the top provides you with links where one can look for sources. I am usually using Google scholar and Google books, sometimes JSTOR. In this specific case it turns out that Scrat can be a lot of other things to, so I would look for "Scrat" "Ice Age" instead. E.g. in this source has analysis/commentary about Scrat and about Scratte, which could be used to get back the recently removed section on Scratte and improve it with analysis. This book has a one-page commentary which both rates Scrat ("the most popular charater" in the Ice Age franchise) and talks about the history/relationship of its short films relative to the main story. What do you think? Daranios (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as the sources are helpful for the article to be improved. Im sharing your findings to the person who possibly want to improve the page. Thanks! 2001:4455:30B:6C00:E953:90A4:A013:75B2 (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Maléfices

I don't know if there are any sources for this French RPG, but it does have a page on frwiki. BOZ (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: I am not too optimistic here. The two inline citations in the French article are a Facebook page and what seems to be a crowd-funding page - so presumably not independent. The Le GROG page could be used to reference basic information, but it may not confer notability, as to my understanding the page aims to cover all role-playing games. This book, Jouer avec l’Histoire, sounds very promising. But it is not available on Google books to have a look. This paper says that "direct address to the reader makes it possible to single out the world and make the receiver feel its atmosphere ... This conversational writing also creates a bond with the narrator who provides us with the elements to play the game. gives the "keys" to the universe ... For these reasons, even in its written texts, the RPG carries the seeds of the orality that characterizes it, and which allows it to achieve this collective and dynamic fictional creation." with Maléfices being the example of an RPG which does this "direct address to the reader". Not sure if this is useable. Oh, wait, that's good: This book pages 253-255 does some significant discussion! If now we had one more... Daranios (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hurray, found one: There is what I think is a critique or commentary on p. 37 of this French RPG magazine! Daranios (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There is also commentary here, but I can only see a very limited preview, likely it's very short. Daranios (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Easter in Germany

Thanks :) Care to comment here? Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_16#Category:Easter_traditions_by_country (which perhaps you've already seen?) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: You overtook me there :-). I was just in the process of writing a comment at the deletion discussion when I saw your message here. Daranios (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Source finder

Hi Daranois, I think you're actually good at finding sources. So Ive been improving two neglected articles and planning them to send at GAN. Only if you have time to check whether you can find more book sources that are not yet used for the article Rebecca Chambers (Resident Evil) and Ada Wong. Will appreciate it. BloatedBun (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello BloatedBun! My strategy is usually to start out with Google scholar and Google books. In this case here I would add "Resident Evil", as I am sure there are real persons with those names that would pop up otherwise. So this Google scholar list for Ada Wong. And this for Google books, which gives mostly novels/fiction, but also e.g. Immersion, Narrative, and Gender Crisis in Survival Horror Video Games and Feminism in Play, which seem to have some analysis. I have no time to look through those lists of hits in more detail, sorry, but want to mention one more curiosity, which might not pop up in your search as it's in German: Erfolgreiches Charakterdesign für Computer- und Videospiele has a paragraph analyzing the choice of the name Ada Wong on p. 178-179. Daranios (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems like I can only access and download Feminism in Play unlike others. Thank you for guiding me! BloatedBun (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you weigh in?

Hey, I noticed you are good at find source from the above discussion, and I seen you participating in other character AFDs. Would you mind weighing in on the AFD for Coco Bandicoot? Thanks. MoonJet (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, MoonJet, that was too late for me (and too little time on my side in general). I have written how I go about finding sources just above. If you are unhappy with the result of the AfD, you could use such secondary sources (and, if applicable, the former version, which remains available in the history of the redirect) to expand the Coco Bandicoot section. There may come a point where it merits splitting out again. The safest way, as this would mean overturning the old decision, would then be to submit a draft to WP:AfC. Daranios (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It has already been expanded some since the AFD. Looking at it now, there's definitely enough there for an article, per WP:SPINOUT. Not to mention, I have even more that's not cited there. I was thinking of either AFC or WP:DELREV. Deletion review can also be used if you have new sourcing to add not brought up in the AFD, rather than just disagreeing with the closer. Do you think it should have been kept, by the way? MoonJet (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@MoonJet: Looking at the result of the expanded section, I personally think it should have been kept. There have been, however, many discussions (like in this case) on which sources actually do contribute to notability, and how extensive coverage has to be in any one specific source. I am no expert on the process of deletion review, but I would not expect it to be overturned. The only possible reason I can see would be if point 3 of the purpose of a deletion review would apply, but I don't have an overview if you have used any sources not discussed in the deletion discussion. So working on it and then going through AfC seems the more promising route to me. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to see about that. For that matter, I've also been trying to get Amy Rose restored. Here's my sandbox page for that. Amy Rose already has a draft at AFC, though I wasn't the one who started it. I might either add my content there and submit it for review or bring that to deletion review too, since I have more sourcing uncovered since the merge discussion a few years back. What do you think?

If you have anything on Amy Rose or Coco Bandicoot that I haven't cited or brought up in the deletion/merge discussions, please provide them here. MoonJet (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Amy Rose draft looks fine to me, though I think I would skip listing the five suggested actresses for her voice as just one writers opinion. The sources I saw which were not yet in the article just confirmed details already present in other sources. I am no expert in who this will fare in an WP:AfC, though, as I generally lean more towards inclusion. Daranios (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I would bring this to AFC though. Consensus is currently against Amy Rose having an article. Can AFC override that? Though, keep in mind that I also have more sourcing and stuff there since the consensus was formed, so I'm not sure what to do. MoonJet (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am honestly not sure. I did not read through all those discussions. I'd assume that it would not hurt to go through AfC, if you think you have take care of at least a part of the "oppose" opinion arguments, and if you are up front and state where there was a discussion with a consensus against the old version of the article/section. Small point: I happened upon a master thesis as one of the sources in the draft. Those are usually not considered reliable sources and might do more hurt than good with regard to the question of notability. Daranios (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is one of the discussions. To be fair, that consensus was based on this version of my draft. Compare that to what I have now. I feel I've addressed at least most of the criticisms there. What do you think?

Also: "I happened upon a master thesis as one of the sources in the draft."

What are you talking about here? MoonJet (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@MoonJet: With the master thesis I've meant current reference no. 57, Video Game Presentism: The Digital Now and Identities of Interactive Media. Daranios (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@MoonJet: As for the rest, sorry, not enough energy to get into the complete picture. If you feel that you have addressed the main criticisms, I don't see a reaseon not to try out AfC. Daranios (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

So, these are usually not considered reliable? Is there any discussion on this?

In any case, I'm still not sure what to do yet. MoonJet (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, usually those are not considered reliable. That's in WP:SCHOLARSHIP within WP:Reliable sources: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Daranios (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Cantos and Thank You's...

You may wish to consider WP:RETAIN in any further discussion of a LFD... Cheers, and thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@LessHeard vanU: Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for the well-phrased reminder of that specific part of WP:BURDEN you had pointed to! On reading further it became clear to me the removal of material based on WP:BURDEN is only meant if there is "considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified", which also seems to solve our case based on the current status of discussion. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons

I should have brought this one to your attention sooner! I don't believe it is inappropriate to work on an article post-AFD and pre-merge, but if there is anything more that can be done to improve it, then we can either take it to DRV, or at worse we have better content for the merge when it ultimately happens (which in this case may be a while unless someone really wants to put the work into merging it soon). BOZ (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: Thanks! I was aware of that, but unfortunately have little time these days, and also let myself be occupied in other deletion discussions and more. I'll see if I can do a bit. Daranios (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The nominator was in a hurry to redirect it, so no worries. I'm going to add it to my massive deletions list page so that perhaps someone will work on getting it restored and rebuilt one day. BOZ (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

I figured I had just enough to start a little stub on The Monsters Know What They’re Doing. :) BOZ (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Article preserved elsewhere

Since you argued to keep the article, I thought you might want to know I already exported the most recent version to https://cultural-phenomenons.fandom.com/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering_in_popular_culture so it'd be saved. I was unable to do a full history import since the file size was too large. At times I save articles that are going to be deleted by sticking them over there or other fandoms. Dream Focus 12:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Thanks! Good to know that it's preserved somewhere! Daranios (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Waukeen

Does that secondary source have anything that can be used here as part of a temporary restore? BOZ (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: I think not much, but I'll check what can be used. Daranios (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Science Fiction Barnstar

		The Science Fiction Barnstar
		I, Piotrus, award you with The Science Fiction Barnstar, for your significant contributions to this topic area on Wikipedia. Per aspera ad astra.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Metaplot

Given the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaplot, and that there is nothing to merge, but at the same time you found some sources, could you add a sentence about metaplot, referenced, to campaign setting, then we can soft redirect that article? Seems like the best outcome for now. Right now since the primary article is unreferenced, there is nothing to merge, but if someone just lazily redirects it, you efforts to find some sources will be wasted... PS. Right now, campaign setting doesn't even mention this term, which is another strike against "just redirecting", per WP:EASTEREGG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks for the ping, I am working on it. Could you perhaps contribute what's in this (I think) Polish source, Gry fabularne. Kultura–praktyki–konteksty, assuming that this is ok as a source? Daranios (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Or realistically, if you find enough sources to prove that the topic is actually notable, then we could always take it to DRV to have the result overturned. Failing that, yes, it can be merged properly as per the AFD results. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ (CC since you may want to read this too).

I found the full book pdf here, a nice suprise. Note that since it's a pdf you can use tools like Google Drive to machine translate it to English too.

Some sources cited by the book, not very impressive (reliable) for us, but academia can have different standards sometimes I guess... one, two. Maybe they can be used as external links...

Overall, I think it's (i.e. the chapter by Olaf Pajączkowski from Uniwersytet Opolski. entitled "Artyzm czy robota na zlecenie? Wolność twórcza autorów książek osadzonych w światach RPG (na przykładzie powieści z cyklu Dragonlance i Forgotten Realms"; English title provided "Art or craft? Creative freedom of RPG writers (based on examples of Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms series of novels) a high quality source (well written) and a SIGCOV-meeting work about metaplot (the author often translates it to Polish as metafabuła - I did a search and I am afraid there's not much else in Polish literature on this, outside this single work).

Anyway, here's my summary of the key points made in the relevsant chapter about metaplot from this book. Note that it very much talks about it as related to both book series and rpg games - and in fact most examples it cites are related not to rpg sourcebooks but to rpg novels, such as The Legend of Drizzt or the Dragonlance novels (the author at one points pretty much mentions the concept of entire List of Dungeons & Dragons fiction as the corpus of literature he analyses here). Much of the work is about how the metaplot contraints reduce the freedom of writers, who have to respect the history and present events in the universe (as many books are set in the present), and they cannot "break the world", etc. The author notes that metaplot has a major influence on the affected works. He defines metaplot as an "evolving history of a given fictional universe". Lastly, the author notes that metaplot is developed not just by the writers, but by "teams" - multiple writers, editors, publishers, graphic designers and even players. An interesting exampe given is the cancellation of Elaine Cunningham's novel Reclamation (brief discussion here), which the author asserts was cancelled because metaplot evolved changing the world (a 100 year jump) making her book 'obsolete' and the publisher decided it's not worth finishing.

I think you can use the above paragraph in your draft, rewritten as needed - all what I say above is supported by the chapter cited. You can machine translate it to raid for a few more examples.

All that said, I don't see how metaplot, as defined and discussed in that chapter (I cited the definition author provides for that purpose too), is different from Campaign setting, which we define (albeit without a source) as "a fictional world which serves as a setting for a role-playing game or wargame campaign". Understood in such a way, IMHO, those topics are identical, and as such I still support the merge. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think metaplot is an aspect of a campaign setting (much like characters, locations, events, etc), the only question was whether it could stand alone as a topic. Thank you for looking into this more. BOZ (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ I am having trouble seeing the difference here. I mean, yes, characters, locations, events are part of campaign setting, but isn't metaplot the same thing as the campaign setting? Characters, locations, events are part of metaplot as well. Unless we define metaplot as "history" only, although history = events. Is this what you mean? Given the relatively few sources, I think trying to impove the (terrible, terrible, terrible...) article on campaign setting for now would be best. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the metaplot is the history/story of the campaign setting, while the other things I listed are other parts of the campaign setting, all adding up to make a whole. Without a metaplot you just have campaign setting as sandbox, which is fine and how old school RPGs tended to be, but not how most modern games are. BOZ (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ Can you give me an example of a campaign setting without metaplot? Like stand-alone adventures not connected to anything? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Examples in my view would be Council of Wyrms, Al-Qadim and arguably Bithright for D&D or the world of Numenera from Monte Cook Games. They are all presented as a snapshot in time, with no overarching development forward. Daranios (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Daranios I am not sure if I agree here. Numenera, Al-Qadim and Birthright, seem to have a number of expansions, for example. If we go with the def of "evolving history", then I would define campaign settings without metaplot as those limited to a single publication, without any other material to "evolve history" (past or future) and not connected to any other universe (which they would then expand). And as for CoW, it's connected https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Io . Yes, it's a stand-alone adventure, as far as I can tell, but it is still part of the world, i.e. part of the metaplot. Now, I am sure we can find rpg's that are truly stand-alone (had just a core book published in the world, and nothing esle), so overall, I am leaning towards agreeing that campaign setting is not the same as metaplot. I still think given the relatively few sources discussing this (we just have one definition of metaplot, from a minor Polish-language article), notability is a problem. Although I am having seconds thoughts about merger, as we haven't found a source that states metaplot is an element of a campaign setting, do we? So merging it there could be ORish. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Starting with your last points for time reasons: I've found the definition confirmed in several sources which I can add as references. How many would you find ideal before it becomes WP:Refbombing? As for the connection of metaplot and campaign setting, Dragons in the stacks says "These supplements, starting with The Four Winds, detail the “metaplot” of the setting (Alderac, “Legend”)[13]. Legend of Five Rings is not unique in using a metaplot; the Forgotten Realms setting by Wizards of the Coast, uses the same concept, as did many of the White Wolf games in the 1990s." Are Angels OK? says "When used in reference to comercially-published game worlds (such as the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance), it [metaplot] is the evolving story that shapes that game world over time..." If we can agree that "setting" and "game world" are generally used interchangeably with "campaign setting", that would suffice for me. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

To my knowledge the expansions for Numenera, Al-Qadim and Birthright all provide more detail for their respective regions/topics, but they do not advance any plot, but are rather all set more or less at the same point in time as their basic settings. Birthright is actually quite a good example: It had a number of "domain sourcebooks". Each explained how the regent of that domain was no longer available - all in the year of the basic campaign setting - so that the domain could be taken over by a player character. None of these disappearances/deaths were meant to form a metaplot, they were never mentioned in any other product. As for Council of Wyrms, that was a self-contained setting with a few adventures coming with it. That somewhere else it was described how that setting could be incorporated into another game world hardly constitutes a plot. Daranios (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, to me all world building is metaplot. Meta meaning it's in more than one publication. Yes, that's my subjective view, but it is not contradicted by any definitions we have, is it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I think your view somewhat ignores the plot part in metaplot. My examples all present the world and lots of adventure hooks (and naturally a history that lead up to that), but don't develop them forward. White et al.'s definition contains "continuous campaigns ... combining all games played to a central storyline, or metaplot", Are Angels OK? says "the evolving story that shapes that game world over time". I think "continous", "storyline", "evolving story" do not fit to my "this campaign setting is a snapshot in time" view of the counter-examples of metaplot like Birthright. Daranios (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

But if you see Birthright as part of the wider universe, then this snapshot fits into the bigger metaplot. Birthright may not have a Birthright-only metaplot, but it is part of the metaplot for Forgotten Realms (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Aebrynis), or D&D universe, being a realm. Second, it had several adventures released, each presumably advancing the history through the events contained to it, even if they were interdependent. If it was possible for characters to participate in one adventure, then follow into the second, that's evolving history, right there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This starts getting into fine distinctions :-). If you have another look at the definition from White et al., I do not think individual adventures which do not feed back into changing the world count as a metaplot. And the fact that Planescape and Spelljammer have their metaplot elements in my view does not suddenly make all D&D campaign settings metaplotty. If you check out p. 43 of White et al. for the results of (heavy) metaplot on the game, you'll find that that does not occur in Birthright, Al-Qadim or Numenera. Daranios (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, given the sparsity of sources, it's pretty OR to make the call one way or another... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: The easy solution to that, which is now already implemented, would be to stick to examples called out as metaplot in secondary sources. BTW, I've seen an interesting forum post on the topic here. Daranios (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, sticking to sources seems best. Thanks for saving this, I think we can remove the merge notice, although it's a bit weird, procedurally - should we do a deletion review, citing the article being rewritten? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks also for your help. I was wondering the same about the procedure. I guess either a deletion review (based on WP:DRVPURPOSE point 3.) would solve this, or starting a discussion where the current merge notice points, Talk:Campaign_setting, pinging the participants of the deletion discussion, to avoid any bad feelings by the participants. Daranios (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Daranios Pinging participants is a good idea, I am not sure if DRV is needed (as the nominator, I am not going to object to leaving the article as it is, as I've become convinced that merge is not the best). Still, if you want to be 100% formal, a DRV or a merge discussion are the way to go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

While browsing this source (sadly, just a master thesis, but seems reliable - well written, to me, speaking as a teacher :D) I found possible new synonyms: storyworld and narrative world. Quote: "...it is important to note Ryan‟s use of the term “narrative world”, the same as Gibbons. The above quote if from an older publication of Ryan‟s and in Storyworlds across Media Ryan and Thon explain that the contemporary choice of using the term “storyworld” in favor of “narrative” is both a recognition of the emergence of “world” aspects within both the narratological field as well as the broader cultural scene. As such the term “narrative world” implies a similar meaning as “storyworld”, a consistent mental image that shares a number of distinguishing features. With this in mind the campaign setting (emphasis mine - Piotrus, also pinging User:BOZ) can be seen as the world in which the Game Master (GM) and players populate with their player characters and non-player characters, who are intelligent agents. And their interactions with the storyworld are the result of them participating in the actions and happenings which bring about change and thus the sum creates a narrative." Also note that the work doesn't use the term "metaplot", but I think it's pretty obvious the concepts discussed are the same thing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Btw, this is a decent overview, sadly, not reliable: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Metaplot _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Link?

Can you provide a url link for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jolly_Jumper&type=revision&diff=1108997246&oldid=1108994397&diffmode=source ? Or if its not online, ISBN or ISSN or such? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: And done. Daranios (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems like a good source. But... do we have a second one? With one good source, I guess we can leave it be with a notability tag if we feel generous, but you know what GNG says about one source, technically. One more source and we would be good. Ping User:Fram (we are talking about Jolly Jumper). PS. I see you've added one more source, 6 pages, but I can only access two pages, which I am having trouble translating anyway. Do you think it is in-depth and goes beyond plot sufficiently to be our second "leg" here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I think that source can be used as a second "leg", but I can't claim to understand it completely: It describes Jolly Jumper in two modern adaptations, that it does not talk in either for different reasons, and what this behaviour says (symbolizes?) about the relationship to Lucky Luke (showing in reverse conclusion what Jolly Jumper talking can mean in the original comics). In addition, there are multiple shorter treatments. In addition to those I've added, I wonder how much is in "Animaux en cases [Animals in panels/cages] (Groensteen 184-189)", which talks about Jolly Jumper according to Child-animal interactions in Yakari's early adventures: a zoonarratological reading, p. 239. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, then we can leave it be. The notability tag should stay until someone actually writes up a reception section or like, IMHO. Thank you for rescuing this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Locations of The Walking Dead moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Locations of The Walking Dead, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

The article seems not done yet and needs some work, notability is unclear. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Thanks for alerting me to this. Could you please give me some more input what is required for a stub to exist? I know the current version is quite rudimentary, but I already feel that the topic is notable, as I have cited a 2-page-chapter and two full books, all secondary sources, dealing with it. All prose is referenced. Did you think of the individual headings for future expansion, that they need to be verified via references? Thanks for your input! Daranios (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. The way I can see this, I think it is quite difficult, as the only similar article I knew is Locations of Half-Life. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek universe, all bigger universe than Walking Dead, didn't have their own standalone article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Thanks for replying. I'd think that for the bigger universes there are articles (Middle-earth/Geography of Middle-earth, List of Star Wars planets and moons and List of Star Trek regions of space, respectively), though none are a close fit (like not being set on Earth). So I guess my main question is: I though policy encourages the creation of stubs (even though full articles are of course even better, but I have my hands full with other projects). How much would be needed to be left in mainspace? Daranios (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I think from notability standpoint, the locations have to be complete and well described, and contain references from multiple sources. I am not familiar with The Walking Dead universe, so I can't judge whether sufficient reference materials are available to ensure that the article is notable. For instance, the Star Wars universe have many references - many books and guides describe the planets and the locations, but I didn't know if such materials are available for The Walking Dead. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn: The current version of the article lists not many, but at least two full books, and a 2-page book-chapter on the topic, based on which I have assumed the topic being notable. My problem is, I did not want to flesh out a full article myself due to time reasons, therefore my question at which point of development an incomplete article would be ok in mainspace. Daranios (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Couple of monsters

I went ahead and moved Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons) and Orc (Dungeons & Dragons) back to article space. I feel that they both have enough independent sources, which you found as part of working on the monster list, that they should be workable as articles again. At the very least, I feel that if someone calls for deletion again, they can be merged or redirected into the list rather than deleted again. BOZ (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: Thanks! I am not very optimistic yet, but we'll see what happens, and as you said, a redirect would still be better to have than nothing. Or, well actually there might be a number more sources on orcs now than are present, as they are a significant part of the racism controversy. Daranios (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair point! BOZ (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: Thanks a lot, have a good holiday season yourself and all the best for the future! Daranios (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Science Fiction Barnstar
		For your excellent improvements to the Vogon article, which probably single-handedly saved it from deletion at the AFD. Great work! — Hunter Kahn 15:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Daranios!

Happy New Year!

Daranios,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Sexton Blake bibliography

Hi there. Thanks for your attention to this article. To clarify the situation, this was not an article that started as a draft and was then moved into article space. This was first moved into draft, and then promptly restored to article space, while a deletion discussion was ongoing. I did move this back into draft after the deletion discussion concluded, but it was reverted by an editor who had not realised that the initial draftifying and un-draftifying occurred during the deletion discussion. I waited about a month before restoring the draft again, addressing this at User talk:Liz#Sexton Blake bibliography. I've also raised it with the article's main editor at User talk:Nml25#Sexton Blake bibliography moved to draftspace. This should have been made clear either in the edit/move summaries or on the talk page. Given all this, could you please revert the move into article space and restore the article into draft? Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onetwothreeip! The result of the deletion discussion was "no consensus", and the guidelines say in this case an article should be kept for the time being. Which in my view makes a lot of sense for a project which is generally built on gradual improvement. Based on the reasons I have given in that discussion, I think the article, though imperfect, benefits interested users of Wikipedia rather than hurting the project. It was fine to boldly draftify the article when you thought that the best course of action, but according to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I have reverted that based on my opinion (which does not seem to be opposed to Liz's view). (Also, your previous draftification already had happened after the deletion discussion was finished, wasn't it?) My understanding is that before a course other than that suggested for "no consensus" is followed, a consensus for this alternative course has to be found first. Which could be done on the talk page, a deletion review (if you feel the deletion discussion was not properly evaluated), or in a new deletion discussion. Before starting a new deletion discussion, however, you should have to have an idea why the result should turn out otherwise. The passing of one month is not an appropriate reason in my book. Daranios (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guideline that discourages moving an article to draft after a deletion discussion, can you tell me which guideline you are referring to? Given that there was no outcome, being that there was "no consensus" found, it should be as though there was no deletion discussion. I thought that an article shouldn't be moved while a deletion discussion took place, so I waited for it to finish, and which I based on the deletion discussion itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: At Wikipedia:Deletion process#Common outcomes it says the procedure in a case of "No consensus" is to simply remove the deletion note and let the page be, just as in case of "Keep", which is made explicit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close. Also, "Incubate (or "Draftify")" is specifically listed as a different outcome. So "No consensus" is not "draftify" and thus should not be treated as such. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Krakoa for deletion.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Krakoa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.